Cool, glad to know it's tracked, didn't see the issue when searching. Le vendredi 16 décembre 2016 08:55:50 UTC+1, [email protected] a écrit : > > This is in a list of suggestions to be addressed some day > https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/1375 > 'Allow keywords as record field names' > It seems this can be possible, just not done yet. > > > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 11:23:23 AM UTC+11, Nick H wrote: >> >> Ah, I guess you would run into typing issues if you tried to use a >> Dict... that's just my knee-jerk response when people ask about doing >> things with records that you can't do with records :-| >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Nick H <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If you want something that can hold arbitrary string keys like a >>> JavaScript object, you can use a Dict. >>> >>> Making keywords context-sensitive would be a language designer's >>> nightmare. I don't think most languages allow this. Which contexts would >>> the keywords be reserved, and which would they not be? Even if you can >>> specify the special rules consistently, your compiler will become more >>> complicated, more prone to bugs. And if you get everything working, the >>> only benefit you've gained is fixing this one slightly inconvenient use >>> case. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Paul Dijou <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Both solutions are valid (I'm actually using both depending on the >>>> situation) but my main question is why is there such a limitation? >>>> Reserved >>>> keywords could (should?) depend on the context. You cannot define a real >>>> port inside a record, you just want a string to name a property. >>>> >>>> For example, in JavaScript, you can create an object with any property >>>> you want, including reserved keywords, because, at the end of the day, >>>> it's >>>> just string names. Some old browsers required to wrap the key inside >>>> quotes >>>> so I would be fine with writing { "port" = 80 } in Elm if that would solve >>>> the problem. >>>> >>>> Le jeudi 15 décembre 2016 16:20:25 UTC+1, Paul Dijou a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I understand that "port" is a reserved keyword when writing Elm code >>>>> but is there a reason to fail compilation when used as the name of a >>>>> record >>>>> field? It's a bummer when sending records through a port (a real one) and >>>>> the JavaScript is expecting the property "port" (in the record). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Elm Discuss" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> >>
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
